New trolling laws in the UK

P_1

Another forum I'd browse on occasion, Planet Rugby, have had an admin statement posted up

Planet Rugby wrote:

Following continued complaints arriving at our offices, an official decision was taken this morning regarding the future of moderating the PR forum.

"The criteria to moderators is simple: if the discussion is not about rugby then the topic thread must be removed, offensive or not."

The forum was created to provide RUGBY FANS with a place to discuss their views about RUGBY.

We are no longer willing to be seen to be providing bigots with a platform on which to peddle their prejudices.

This seems to have come from this particular bit of news from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20681818

which seems to be a new law coming up over the water that will force boards type websites to out trolls/biggots etc

Interesting to say the least, AFAIK the admins/owners here will hand up the traceable info for anyone who posts up anything particularly nasty if requested.

Wonder if trolling will become an arrestable offence over in the UK?

the_syco

pithater1 wrote: »

This seems to have come from this particular bit of news from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20681818

which seems to be a new law coming up over the water that will force boards type websites to out trolls/biggots etc

An eradication of free speech. I wonder what effect will this have on such sites like Stormfront, and will such sites as it be banned like the Pirate Bay is banned on the Eircom ISP?

im invisible

problem? ;/)

Chips Lovell

TBH, I don't have much of a problem with the proposals, at least as they're summarised there. I don't believe that sites such as Boards or Facebook or whoever should get sued for what people say on them. It's the user themselves who should be sued.

"Free speech" has never really been a defence against libel.

Haelium

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

"Free speech" has never really been a defence against libel.

Libel isn't really the issue, it's going to get to a stage where expressing any racist/homophobic/sectarian/offensive view is illegal. When you make a political position(As disgusting as it may be) against the law to express, you have done away with free speech.

Chips Lovell

It's a Defamation Bill, no?

Proposals in the Defamation Bill aim to protect website operators such as Facebook or Twitter from claims against them when defamatory statements are published by their users, while making it easier to identify the people accused of making such statements

Its a good thing if it can stamp out people who commit libel from behind their keyboards. Ryan Tubridy is notorious for it.

someuser905

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

TBH, ....

i stopped reading

AnonoBoy

"Look under the bridges
That's where they hide"

Sky King

the_syco wrote: »

An eradication of free speech. I wonder what effect will this have on such sites like Stormfront, and will such sites as it be banned like the Pirate Bay is banned on the Eircom ISP?

Free speech is ok by me if the speaker does so publicly. Anon bigotry is another matter though.

Knasher

The British libel laws are already notorious for their chilling effect on free speech, the US even went as far as passing a law recently specifically to protect US citizens from libel tourism in the UK courts. The new law as described suffers from the same problems as the rest of UK libel law, the presumption of guilt unless the accused can prove their statements are true.

P_1

It's a bit of an overkill move IMO, will be interesting to see what happens to the likes of Stormfront with it though

opti0nal

pithater1 wrote: »

Wonder if trolling will become an arrestable offence over in the UK?

It's heading that way - didn't some guy get arrested for acting the monkey at a football match?

A man who was arrested on suspicion of racist behaviour after Chelsea's League Cup win over Manchester United on 31 October will face no further action.
Pictures taken during the fourth-round tie at Stamford Bridge appeared to show a fan making a "monkey gesture".
Manchester United striker Danny Welbeck appeared to be the target of the alleged abuse.
Scotland Yard said a decision was taken with the Crown Prosecution Service to take no further action.

Logical_Bear

pithater1 wrote: »

will be interesting to see what happens to the likes of Stormfront with it though

this is a UK law?stormfront is hosted in the states,favourite site to troll too:):pac:

Run_to_da_hills

pithater1 wrote: »

Wonder if trolling will become an arrestable offence over in the UK?

Yes because the UK is rapidly turning into itself a fascist police state.

Doors have already being kicked down over unintentional Twitter & Facebook jokes.

Logical_Bear

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Yes because the UK is rapidly turning into itself a fascist police state.

Doors have already being kicked down over unintentional Twitter & Facebook jokes.

YAWN

recylingbin

Rugby fans should be made to eat semen soaked biscuits while having their knobs stroked by another guy in the circle.
Thankfully, as I understand it, this is already the case.

Scruffles

Logical_Bear wrote: »

YAWN

coudnt have put that any better.:P

It's heading that way - didn't some guy get arrested for acting the monkey at a football match?

no,that poor geezah has been misunderstood...better picture here of him here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20212989
he was actualy practicing for an interview for a job at carpet world,the photo shows him mastering the difficult 'carpet under each arm manouver' at the same time whilst shouting 'alright bruv,put the hansel & grettel on,time for a quick brew before guv catches us'.

oh and the bloke at the side of him that looks like russel howard in that bbc picture is actualy doing the BSL sign for drinking/wanting a beer,am sure the footballers can wait for a pint.

Our man in Havana

There is no such thing as free speech.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The people who own websites decide on who can say what. It is their money, you obey their rules.

Simples.

Feathers

Knasher wrote: »

The British libel laws are already notorious for their chilling effect on free speech, the US even went as far as passing a law recently specifically to protect US citizens from libel tourism in the UK courts. The new law as described suffers from the same problems as the rest of UK libel law, the presumption of guilt unless the accused can prove their statements are true.

Britian has gotten to a silly stage — e.g. the guy who posted on Facebook "let's go out & loot" during the riots & took it down within a couple of hours, but was still charged — but of course libelous statements should have to be backed up

Are you saying, for instance, that if I spread a rumours that you wee going around sexually asaulting women in niteclubs, with lots of hearsay evidence & you sued me — you'd be happy if the burden of proof was on you rather than me?

opti0nal

Our man in Havana wrote: »

There is no such thing as free speech.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. The people who own websites decide on who can say what. It is their money, you obey their rules.

Simples.

It's one thing being banned for an infraction, it's another having the plod come through your door.

How about private messages? For example e-mails or IM's?

Our man in Havana

No such thing as a PM as those can be read by admins if they so desire.

Madam_X

Our man in Havana wrote: »

No such thing as a PM as those can be read by admins if they so desire.

Breach of privacy still, and not something they should be openly doing unless really necessary. I've seen that discussion on Feedback here - and admins would agree.

franktheplank

I haven't read all of this proposal but here's what i'd like to bring to the discussion.

Libel cases are hugely expensive, In Ireland you could be talking exposing yourself to costs of 100k for a circuit court case and 500k for a high court case.

It's a luxury of the wealthy so while this remains the case I think it's a necessary evil that people can post anonymously online.

Otherwise the truth can remain hidden under threat of libel action, or people might not be able to defend themselves from wealthy or powerful bullies.

EoghanIRL

Umad brah ?